Site Meter

This week's big news story has been the new National Intelligence Estimate summary that claims that Iran halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003. This is a complete turnaround from the NIE summary released two years ago that warned of Tehran's obsession with acquiring a nuclear weapon and placed a ten year time line on that goal.

Of course the Bush Administration, and Democrats like Hillary Clinton, who must viewed as "hawkish", have been warning for some time that Iran is on a dangerous quest to develop a nuclear weapon, and that the US will not allow that to happen. Democrat leaders smelled blood in the NIE summary, and their reactions (compiled by RushLimbaugh.com) were predictable:

HARRY REID:
I would be very surprised if, when this report came out yesterday and
was made public, that the president didn't already know all about it.

JOE BIDEN:
The president raised the specter of World War III with Iran because, as
he said, its pursuit of a nuclear weapon, months after he had been told
by our intelligence community it's likely that Iran had halted its
weapons program.

RAHM EMANUEL: This report is a game changer. Okay?

HILLARY CLINTON:
I vehemently disagree with the president that nothing's changed and,
therefore, nothing in American policy has to change. I have, for two
years, advocated diplomatic engagement with Iran, and I think that's
what the president should do.

BARAK OBAMA: They should have stopped
the saber rattling, shouldn't have never [sic] started it, and they
need now to aggressively move on the diplomatic front.

JAY ROCKEFELLER:
I have to believe that he knew what was going on. Why was he talking
about a nuclear Holocaust? Why was he talking about all of those
things?

This is amazing, isn't it? US intelligence is flawed, it's unreliable, it's manipulated by the Bush White House for propaganda purposes ... yet suddenly, when it seems that US intelligence can be used to damage Bush, our intelligence is inerrant and infallible. At what other time have you heard Democrats or anyone else demand that we completely alter our foreign policy based on one intelligence summary?

Let me put this in perspective. Historically, the NIE reports have been notoriously inaccurate -- for example, take a few minutes and read through this summary of the 2002 NIE report that stated that "Iraq 'is reconstituting its nuclear program,' 'has chemical and
biological weapons,' and that 'all key aspects--R&D [research and
development], production, and weaponization--of Iraq's offensive
biological weapons program are active and that most elements are larger
and more advanced than they were before the Gulf War.'" And in a summary of the August 2005 NIE summary on Iran, The Washington Post reported that "U.S. intelligence knows "disturbingly little" about Iran, and about North Korea."

John Bolton has a good analysis of the flaws and ambiguities of the report in today's Washington Post. Bolton also notes, "The real differences between the NIEs are not in the hard data but in
the psychological assessment of the mullahs' motives and objectives.
The current NIE freely admits to having only moderate confidence that
the suspension continues and says that there are significant gaps in
our intelligence and that our analysts dissent from their initial
judgment on suspension. This alone should give us considerable pause."

Yesterday, Rush Limbaugh had this conversation with a very knowledgeable woman who had worked previously in the Defense Intelligence Agency:

CALLER:
Look at page four. I'll read it to you. "This NIE does not assume
that Iran intends to acquire nuclear weapons." That's actually in
boldface type on page four of the NIE.

RUSH: Well, that's absurd!

CALLER:
It's the kind of thing... It's a Zen sort of statement. You know, you
could be communicating your stance on this and then this is what I'm
going to tell you. It's not the way... A military officer who wrote
something like that would get locked up by the commander and told to go
sit in the corner.

RUSH: Why?

CALLER: Because it leaves
an invalid impression. You may lay out the exact truth with respect to
each of your supporting points and comments, but if you say up front
things that leave a misleading impression, then you should be shot.

RUSH:
(laughs) Well, wait a minute. Isn't it consistent, though, for them to
say, "We do not assume they're pursuing nuclear weapons"? Isn't that
consistent with the opening line in the key judgment?

CALLER:
Well, it leaves an impression of inconsistency, although I can tell you
that an intelligence officer who wrote this thing would come back and
say, "Well, that sentence doesn't mean that we don't think they intend
to acquire nuclear weapons. It just means that we didn't assume that
in writing this NIE."

RUSH: Oh. Oh, oh, oh, oh. Oh, okay. I misunderstood you. I'm sorry.

CALLER: Well, and I can fully understand how you would misunderstand that. I wouldn't have written that sentence in that way.

RUSH: It's a CYA.

CALLER: Pretty much, yes.

RUSH:
It's an ambiguous CYA, so that no matter what ends up happening in the
future they can't be held accountable for what they wrote.

CALLER:
That's how it comes off, yes. When you are in the line of
intelligence, you learn to put your key judgment up front, meaning, "If
you take nothing else away, remember this 25-word summary of what I
said."

RUSH: Which has got a lot of politics behind it in this case.

CALLER:
Exactly. I will tell you this, having worked with the DIA and the
military service agencies, the way they probably were gotten to sign
off on this is because their loyalty is to their military bosses.
They're not going to sign on to something that's misleading. I imagine
that the way they signed off on this was that it was couched in these
kind of non-accountable terms. Basically, everything CIA said is
probably technically correct as far as they know. It's the structure
of this thing that makes all the difference. ... My
bottom line on this is that, as an intelligence document, it is a
waffling document in terms of where it should be accountable and make
statements, and that's what we... Okay, if Iran halted its program in
'03, what does that mean about Iran's intentions? You know, "How was
Iran, in fact, influenced to do that?" and this document doesn't do
that.

And that's really the big question. Why did Iran halt its nuclear weapons program? Why did they do it in 2003? Why do the Israelis still believe that Iran is set on acquiring nuclear weapons? We know that Iran has openly mocked the UN and has unwaveringly pursued its program to enrich uranium into nuclear fuel. As far as we know, they are close to mastering - or have already mastered - the nuclear fuel cycle.

Iran presents us with the perfect example of a situation in which we may endanger ourselves greatly by not "honoring the threat." Iran is a bully. She supplies munitions and training to terrorist groups throughout the Middle East. She controls the governments of Syria and Lebanon. She controls Hezbollah. She provides weapons and training to Iraqi insurgents and possibly to al-Qaeda operatives inside Iraq. And she has been philosophically and culturally at war with America for nearly 30 years. We dismiss Iran at our own peril.

More info on the ordeal suffered by the kidnapped British sailors and marines:

Arthur told of the moment he and his comrades were paraded on TV and forced to confess they had strayed into Iranian waters.

He said: "A guard was saying, 'smile, smile, smile for camera'. We felt it would help if we obliged.

"We were happy to see each other for the first time. But the genuine smiles lasted just minutes."

The article also tells us that Seaman Faye Turney's nickname aboard ship was "Topsy." Gotta love those Brits.

But the article also relates an unsettling relationship between Turney and the young Seaman Arthur Batchelor:

Arthur said: "I missed Topsy
most of all. I really love her, as a mum and a big sister. Not seeing her
and not knowing if she was safe was one of the hardest parts of the
whole thing.

"Then on the sixth day, when I was just about giving up hope, I was pulled from my bed in the early hours of the morning.

"They led me down a corridor and into a room, where I saw Topsy in a corner.

"I
can't describe how that felt...just every emotion rolled into one. I
ran up to her, threw my arms round her and cried like a baby.

"When
I'd calmed down, she asked, 'Do you need another hug, a mother hug?'
and I said, 'damn right'. She was just as pleased to see me because
they'd told her I'd been sent home.

"Topsy said she'd always be there for me, to protect me and look after me.

I don't particularly object to the platonic, almost motherly love that Batchelor had for Faye Turney. I just don't like seeing it in the military. These kinds of relationships among shipmates (or among any troops) break down the discipline and command structure that is essential for the military to function properly.

And as for the complaints about the sailors and marines receiving compensation for telling their stories, well, welcome to the 21st century, where everything is for sale.

Many are up in arms over the conduct of the British Royal Marines and Royal Navy personnel who were kidnapped by Iran two weeks ago. The ranking officer in the kidnapped party said:

"We were aware that many people have questioned why we allowed
ourselves to be taken in the first place. From the outset it was very
apparent that fighting back was not an option. Had we done that many of
us would not be standing here today.

"There would have been a major fight, which we could not have
won, and the consequences would have had a major strategic impact. We
made a conscious decision not to engage the Iranians."

I don't think that's cowardice. It seems more like common sense.

The British navy made a severe tactical error. As I understand the events, the frigate Cornwall, which was the Royal Navy gunship from which the patrol boat carrying the 15 was launched, apparently moved out of visual range when the patrol boat approached the Iraqi fishing vessels it was sent to investigate. Obviously the Iranian navy had been monitoring Allied craft for some time, and when they detected that the Cornwall could not immediately respond, they sent out an armed speedboat and intercepted the British patrol boat. If the Cornwall had been close by, then this event would never have happened.

The naval capture was a stroke of genius for the Iranians. In open waters it is not easily possible to point to a landmark and immediately ascertain your position. Thus, charging the British with a trespassing claim surprised them and caught them off guard. Also, no state of war existed between Iran and Britain, so if the British had opened fire then the Iranians could claim an ambush by the Royal Navy. That would have been the worst possible outcome in this situation. As it was, the Cornwall was ordered by London not to open fire on the Iranian vessel after the patrol boat radioed for help. The British got caught with their pants down, and they paid an embarrassing price for it.

The bad news, though, is that Britain has apparently stopped its patrols and cargo inspections off the coast of Iraq. They should not have done this. As long as they stay in Iraqi waters, Iran has no right to interfere with their operations.

[T]he fact that the [US] carriers didn’t need to be used to obtain the
sailors’ release is evidence for doves that Iran can ultimately be
dealt with peacefully, and even act pseudo-magnanimously when need be.
You can already imagine Ahmadinejad’s speech to the UN next year, in
which he compares and contrasts Iranian treatment of prisoners —
illegally seized in another country’s waters, but never you mind that —
to Abu Ghraib. They already had Faye Turney mention AG in one of her
letters, in fact. The whole thing is aimed at persuading the left and
the Third World members of the nonaligned movement that Iran has the
moral high ground in its confrontation with the west. Shouldn’t be too
hard given how eager they are to be persuaded.

The 15 personnel captured by Iran were blindfolded, bound and subjected
to "constant psychological pressure", they said today at a press
conference.

They were told if they did not admit they had strayed into Iranian
waters they faced seven years in prison. They said they were bound,
blindfolded and lined up against a wall while weapons were cocked
making them "fear the worst".

When asked about Faye Turney, who was not at the press
conference, the sailors said: "Being an Islamic country Faye was
subjected to different rules than we were. She was separated from us as
soon as we arrived and isolated. She was told shortly afterwards that
we had all been returned home and was under the impression for four
days that she was the only one there. Clearly she was subjected to a
lot of stress. She coped admirably and maintained a lot of dignity."

The sailors criticised the propoganda used by Iran. Joe Tindell
said: "Obviously we're not pleased about it. As far as I'm concerned
the whole thing was a complete media stunt."

Lieutenant Carman added that they were kept in solitary confinement for
a period before being allowed out in the evenings for a couple of hours
to play chess and socialise. "But that was in the full glare of the
Iranian media. It was very much a setup, very much a stunt for Iranian
propaganda." (emphasis added)

"Mock executions," anyone?

Let's review:

Iran crossed into Iraqi waters.

Iran captured and held hostage uniformed military personnel from Great Britain, in Iraqi waters, without a state of war existing between Iran, Great Britain, or Iraq.

Iran accused uniformed military personnel of being spies.

Iran used psychological torture and humiliation techniques including blindfolding, stripping naked, mock executions, solitary confinement, deceit about the situations of the other hostages, and threats of prison and incarceration for nonexistent crimes.

Iran forced hostages to read "confessions" and used these confessions for propaganda.

Iran paraded hostages in front of TV cameras for propaganda purposes.

All of these things are illegal under either the commonly accepted rules for military engagement or the Geneva Conventions. And when the US uses similar techniques against captured terrorists, Leftists say that we "torture" them.

Lessons learned: Iran can kidnap uniformed British troops with no threat of British military retaliation. "Iranian waters" are anywhere Iran says they are. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad becomes a hero in the eyes of the world simply for "pardoning" the British military men and women he kidnapped. The UN will be "deeply concerned" but otherwise impotent. The US will keep its mouth shut.

In the film Schindler’s List, Amon Goth, (the notorious commandant of the Auschwitz concentration camp played by Ralph Feinnes)
was struck by a remark made by Oscar Schindler at a party. Schindler
tells a drunken Goth that ‘anyone can kill. Real power comes from the
ability to forgive and pardon.’

The following morning, in what is a chilling and mesmerizing scene infilm, Amon Goth looks
into a mirror and says, ‘I pardon you,’ over and over. He repeats the
remarks over and over, with various gestures, seeking the right ‘look’
for his supposed largesse, in which he can appear grand, magnanimous and humble, all the same time.

There is very little that is different between Amon Goth and Mahmoud
Ahmadenijad and those who support them and share their ideas.

Ouch. But then SC&A goes in for the kill:

Mahmoud Ahmadenijad’s ‘pardon’ and release of those 15 British sailors
and marines is no more a gesture of Iran’s inherent ‘goodness’ than
were Adolph [sic] Hitler’s displays of affection for his dog- and it is
important that we understand that.

Also, Michelle Malkin reprinted a reader's email that highlights this Time article from last week, which indicates that Iran tried this stunt earlier. Last September, detachment of Iranian troops crossed into Iraq and attempted to apprehend a joint Iraqi/US recon patrol. But we shot back and the Iranians fled.

Like I said before, the Iranians are experts at taking hostages.

I am hopeful that the details of how the British were treated by the Iranians will be fully disclosed. Already there have been reports that some of the sailors and marines were held in solitary confinement. It is certainly very likely that they were deprived of sleep and subjected to psychological and emotional stresses designed to break down their resistance. They were illegally apprehended, accused of being spies (though they were uniformed), paraded around on TV, and forced to read "confessions," all of which are in violation of the Geneva Convention. Clearly -- according to the standards of the Left -- these prisoners were tortured. Will we hear an outcry from Amnesty International? The ACLU? Don't hold your breath.

Iran's cash flow problem is temporarily solved. And maybe they get to humiliate the West at the same time.

Just follow the money, folks.

Related: It is now being reported that the British Ministry of Defense (or is that Defence?) intervened when British forces reported that an Iranian gunboat was approaching, and ordered their naval vessels to stand down and not offer any resistance to the Iranians. Interesting, but this decision does place the onus completely on Iran, and Britain cannot be condemned for "attacking" an Iranian vessel (you know they would have changed their story and claimed they were in "Iranian" waters at the time) or for using "excessive force."

The Iranians are professionals when it comes to hostage-taking, so it is no surprise that they chose to capture 15 British Royal Marines this past weekend, probably as some kind of test of Western resolve. It's an interesting strategy -- test the "West" without directly involving the United States.

If Iran's President Ahmadinejad caves and releases the hostages without receiving something in return (like the release of Iranians captured in Iraq a promise not to intervene in Iran/Iraq affairs) then he is through as an Islamic strongman.

If Britain capitulates to Iran, then we are in serious trouble vis-a-vis the current situation in Iraq.

Of course I'm sure that there is already a die-hard group of tinfoil hat conspiracy nuts spreading rumors that those Royal Marines are being held by our side either in Gitmo or in some secret CIA prison in Europe.

1) there is "no
difference" between American Christian fundamentalists and radical
Shi'ia Islam fundamentalists, and

2) President Bush is under the
complete control of American Christian fundamentalists

I'd like to offer a challenge -- please cite
just one example of President George W. Bush ending a major address with a prayer like this one:

"I emphatically declare that today's world more than ever before
longs for just and righteous people with love for all humanity, and
above all longs for the perfect, righteous human being and the real
savior who has been promised to all peoples and who will establish
justice, peace and brotherhood on the planet.

Oh
Almighty God, all men and women are your creatures and you have
ordained their guidance and salvation. Bestow upon humanity that
thirst for justice, the perfect human being promised to all by you, and
make us among his followers among those who strive for his return and
his cause."

Make us among his followers.
This would be akin to President Bush concluding his speech with an
appeal for everyone to follow Jesus. The commentariat would fall off
their chairs en masse: he’s outPoped the Pope! But Ahmadinejad, I
suspect, will get a pass. Not because his kumbaya blather and
deliciously naughty anti-empire rhetoric chubbed up the lads at AP and
Reuters, but because he’s seen as a vaguely absurd figure. He says the
most colorful things. Nice smile, too! Always good for a quote, that
one.

There’s something else behind the
indifferent reaction, though. Everyone has already accepted the idea of
Iranian nukes. I think it’s been factored into our subconscious
calculations, where they lie as great red glowing things whose threat
is somehow still abstract. They won’t use them. They just want them.
The way we all want a big-screen TV, and would keep it in the box once
we bought it.

I
frequently hear people remark that Iran would not be stupid enough to
use a nuke, since they know it would bring about retaliation. But MAD
only works if the other guy’s SANE. If the Administration regularly
made remarks like Ahmadinejad and the other top-tier leaders, critics
in the West would have long ago been dissolved in a puddle of corrosive
urine. Imagine the President of the United States addressing a group of
supporters and leading them in a chant of “Death to Iran.” Imagine what
that might mean.

If it helps clarify things, imagine a flash of lightning. (emphasis added)

(Check out my Iran Watch
archive if you want to read more about Ahmadinejad's fundamentalist
Shi'ia beliefs and his devotion to the return of the Twelfth Imam.)

ADDED: Scott from Powerline notes that a crowd of thirty five thousand gathered outside the UN to support Israel and protest Ahmadinejad's speech. Didn't read about that in the US mainstream media either, did we?

Police in Tehran have been ordering Iranian women to cover up, stopping those they perceive as "badly veiled."

The crackdown followed the 2005 election of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

"We are certainly seeing a return to behavior we haven't seen for
10 years," Hadi Ghaemi of Human Rights Watch told The Telegraph.
"Generally, the imposition of strict Islamic codes has been increasing
under Ahmadinejad."

Ghaemi said that the penalty for violating a code that requires the
complete covering of women's heads and bodies in public depends on the
officers involved and the women's political connections.

I wonder, do 'thinly veiled' women get a pass ... if they have good political connections?